Mugged twice in one day, sounds about right for NY. My sister went on holiday there several years back, for some crimbo shopping if I recall correctly. Anyway, good comic today; Abe seems to atract bad luck where ever he goes, but the bad shit always happens to Pres, poor guy. I am prefering the slightly longer comics it must be said; may take more work and longer to produce, but its worth the effort- if only you could see all the happy faces you create king B…….

Another great comic, so true to what is going on in life with all the fast food places having to change things around such as Mc Donalds trying to sell you a salad for $5, i’m not going to pay $5 for a salad i want to eat and die of something while i enjoy my self not have a salad slammed into my face! :P

What the hell is going on in NY? No trans fat? Is this 1984? When will they ban butter and salt? Jeebus, this is insane. How are they going to enforce that anyway? Do they just go around randomly inspecting people’s food with a little wand that detects certain fatty acids?

"Come with me, sir. I’m afraid that sandwich has trans fat in it."
(as he whacks some unsuspecting bloke with his nightstick)

I like eating healthy (sometimes) and I think it’s unfortunate that there are so many obese people in this country, but banning certain food is not the solution. It’s not the solution with cigarettes either, just like it wasn’t the solution with alcohol in the ’20s.

@Hivequeen
Certainly I understand where you are coming from, but it’s not quite like the previous prohibition of alcohol. It wouldn’t be illegal to consume trans fat, just for restaurants to serve it. Also, there are substitutes available in the form of healthier fats.

Hivequeen wrote:
What the hell is going on in NY? No trans fat? Is this 1984? When will they ban butter and salt?

I think in 1984 it was sugar. By the way, in Scandinavia they have decent french fries with a fraction of trans fat compared to the US, and still they are tasty. I don’t know about french fries with cheese sauce though, that sounds pretty sick…

Anyway I was expecting Abe would start complaining about fat transsexuals when you dropped that "trans fat" line. I can’t believe you missed the chance to make another sexist, politically incorrect joke! :wink:

I tell you, those are the same damn things. What are you people, French?

i was referring to nacho chips, not chips as in fries or potato chips (which is also a totally different thing) or crisps or whatever you call it. nachos are quite different from fries because nachos are made from corn tortillas, not potatoes.

but it’s not quite like the previous prohibition of alcohol. It wouldn’t be illegal to [i]consume[/i] trans fat, just for restaurants to serve it.

Actually, it is closer than you might think. It wasn’t illegal during Prohibition to consume alcohol. However, it was illegal to "manufacture, sale, or transportation of intoxicating liquors within, the importation thereof into, or the exportation thereof…" So similarly, you can’t buy food with transfat anywhere in NYC, but you aren’t prohibited from having any yourself (where you will get it would lead to a Speakeasy for transfat, or maybe transfat smuggling – maybe Abe or Preston can visit a trans fat speakeasy sometime for good food?). Kind of like those dry counties in TX…..

grazor wrote:
Actually, it is closer than you might think. It wasn’t illegal during Prohibition to consume alcohol. However, it was illegal to "manufacture, sale, or transportation of intoxicating liquors within, the importation thereof into, or the exportation thereof…" So similarly, you can’t buy food with transfat anywhere in NYC, but you aren’t prohibited from having any yourself (where you will get it would lead to a Speakeasy for transfat, or maybe transfat smuggling – maybe Abe or Preston can visit a trans fat speakeasy sometime for good food?). Kind of like those dry counties in TX…..

Fair enough; I will concede that point. But I still do not think that it is the best analogy, as the roles of trans fat and alcohol are not identical, and the availability of a substiute for each also differs.

I know it’s not the best analogy, but things always progress from bad to worse when the government tries to take control of citizens’ lives in these kind of ways. Why don’t they focus more on testing vegetables for pathogens so people in this country will stop getting sick from E. Coli infected veggies we’ve imported from Mexico (or wherever)? I’d rather eat nasty-ass cheese fries than get sick as a dog from spinach, lettuce, or onions which were fertilized with human waste – or never deemed fit for human consumption in the first place. Supposedly, these giant companies have issues with "mixing up" non-human vegetable crops with human safe stuff. (like the corn debacle that happened a while back with that chip company)

Making ridiculous laws that have no practical purpose, other than to create more RED TAPE to bungle up our lives, bogs the whole system down. I don’t care if people who have no self-control die of heart attacks 10 years from now. I DO care about cameras on street corners and police who can come in my home with no warrant, for no reason. I DO care about a police force that acts to suppress the citizens, rather than to serve.

Nobody cares about trans fat, and if they do, they can avoid it on their own by choosing to eat healthy foods. It’s like seat belt laws. Everybody knows you’ll probably die if you get in a car crash w/out wearing your belt. So WHY DO WE NEED A LAW? If it kills you and you STILL do it, wtf difference is a law going to make? None. It’s just to make more money for the state.

Simply put, contrary to traditional economic theory, people do not always act in their own best interests. (I know that I am playing fast and loose with the notion of utility here, but bear with me).

I will make an example that seems silly, but is interestingly enough grounded in reality: my headstrong sister refuses to wear a seatbelt. We have gotten into arguments over this, which usually devolve into her saying, "you can’t control me!" But I digress.

My sister has two daughters and a son. Were she ever to get into an accident and experience a serious injury or death because she did not wear a seatbelt, my nieces and nephew would be rendered motherless.

Now, of course we can argue whether or not a seatbelt law would be effective here. With perfect enforcement, such a thing would work, but, realistically, the law may not persuade her to wear a seat belt. But I would argue that the theory of the law is sound.

To give a more apropos argument: if people fill their gullets with loads of fatty foods, and they induce related health problems, then my insurance rates are affected, and I don’t like that.

So, the problem with your argument is that it assumes that every person is an island and that the actions of one individual have no effect on others. Clearly this is not the case. Obviously many laws seek to curb selfish acts with can have a negative impact on others.

I am not saying that individual rights should be ignored, and I may be speaking more generally than about the trans fat issue, but I believe that there should be some notion of group utility invoked.

"… if people fill their gullets with loads of fatty foods, and they induce related health problems, then my insurance rates are affected, and I don’t like that."

I’m not an insurance agent, although I don’t know that your rates would be change due to that (if we are talking about the same thing). Having gone through the process of the interview/check-up for an insurance policy, I saw only questions relating to me. Having said that, if an insurance agent saw your tat, THAT might raise the rates due to the risk of HepC and lifestyles usually associated with tat-bearing folk.

Also, I see where you are going, but I disagree with the comparison: the seat-belt laws pertain to citizens in a given state. The Trans-fat ban, to my knowledge only applies to restuarants which is a subset of citizens. It is a shame about your sister not wearing belts, but like you said not everyone does things in their best interest.

I can still get good cheeze fries where I live. Unfortunately, there are no gravy fries.

To some extent, I was playing devil’s advocate, and I may have been overly vivid with the "gullets" comment, but I will endeavor to meet your points with sound reasoning.

cfos wrote:
I’m not an insurance agent, although I don’t know that your rates would be change due to that (if we are talking about the same thing). Having gone through the process of the interview/check-up for an insurance policy, I saw only questions relating to me. Having said that, if an insurance agent saw your tat, THAT might raise the rates due to the risk of HepC and lifestyles usually associated with tat-bearing folk.

As an unmarried male of 27 years, I have to pay relatively high car insurance rates. This is due to the fact that many single males in my age range are not the most careful drivers. As insurance companies cannot (easily) differentiate the safe drivers from the unsafe, everyone in my class must pay more. It is the lack of knowledge on the part of the company that leads to higher rates for all.

This was mainly the point that I was invoking earlier; it had nothing to do with the companies discriminating in any way (beyond the lawful separation into risk classes), but rather the fact that, if more individuals of any given class require more payouts on behalf of the insurance company, then the premiums of all individuals withing a that class will necessarily be higher.

Therefore, your tattoo ploy misses the mark. In my case, I was simply utilizing the reflexive property of logic (i. e., those who eat more unhealthy foods eat more unhealthy foods, which, in and of themselves, can cause health-related problems). I was not making a claim such as, "those who eat large quantities of unhealthy foods are more likely to engage in some other unhealthy activities," which is logically parallel to you comment about tattoo bearers and reckless lifestyles. (And even that particular statement is ridiculous, given the prevalence of tattoos in society nowadays.)

cfos wrote:
Also, I see where you are going, but I disagree with the comparison: the seat-belt laws pertain to citizens in a given state. The Trans-fat ban, to my knowledge only applies to restaurants which is a subset of citizens.

I don’t really recall addressing the issue of scope, but if you wish to argue that it is important, I could easily argue that automobile drivers are themselves only a subset of the general citizenry, and that a good proportion of the populace eats at restaurant at least occasionally.

It misses the mark when discussing CAR insurance, not PERSONAL health insurance which is where I thought you were going based upon your statement:

"To give a more apropos argument: if people fill their gullets with loads of fatty foods, and they induce related health problems, then my insurance rates are affected, and I don’t like that. "

How does eating fatty foods causally affect your car insurance — which is based upon your male cohort (as you illustrated)?

"I could easily argue that automobile drivers are themselves only a subset of the general citizenry, and that a good proportion of the populace eats at restaurant at least occasionally."

*L* Ok, I addressed this issue above in terms of the populance, but to clarify. Yes, the drivers are a subset of the general citizenry. This is, of course, region specific (i.e. there are not many citizens of NYC that actually know how to drive) and age specific (generally 16 to get a license). Anyone can go to a resturant at any age, with or without driving and with or without a license (i.e. you don’t need a license to eat). Some people go out to eat more often than others, however there is only a subset of that population that eat food made with trans-fat. So, yes, there are obviously countless ways to further define and divide the population. That is not my issue.

"I was simply utilizing the reflexive property of logic (i. e., those who eat more unhealthy foods eat more unhealthy foods, which, in and of themselves, can cause health-related problems). I was not making a claim such as, "those who eat large quantities of unhealthy foods are more likely to engage in some other unhealthy activities," which is logically parallel to you comment about tattoo bearers and reckless lifestyles. (And even that particular statement is ridiculous, given the prevalence of tattoos in society nowadays.) "

Use logic any way you like. My supposition was based on the belief that you were speaking of HEALTH insurance so this is not where I was going.

But having said that… you are using seat-belt/car insurance as an example; your example isn’t parallel. As far as I know the seat-belt law is nationwide (Trans-fat is NYC restricted, yes population again). Car insurance rates are based on statistics compiled by data crunchers. Car insurance, across the US is higher for males in your cohort anywhere in the US regardless of whether or not there is a seatbelt law (other factors surely weigh in such as alcohol-related accidents in this population that account for the increased premium). Furthermore, the CAR insurance companies are thinking of risk/profit– things that really don’t apply to trans fat (unless there is some backdoor politics that are trying to promote the "healthy resturants" that never used trans-fat). Finally, should you get married, age, etc., your insurance rates will go down. Trans-fat still in place regardless of age or marital status.

But before delving further into population examples, please explain how these comments are mutually exclusive:

"(i. e., those who eat more unhealthy foods eat more unhealthy foods, which, in and of themselves, can cause health-related problems). I was not making a claim such as, "those who eat large quantities of unhealthy foods are more likely to engage in some other unhealthy activities,"

You seam to be convolving my examples. Car insurance was just an example to clarify some of my points regarding insurance policies in general; I had introduced the idea in the trans fat case, and this had nothing to do with seat belt laws.

cfos wrote:
But before delving further into population examples, please explain how these comments are mutually exclusive:

"(i. e., those who eat more unhealthy foods eat more unhealthy foods, which, in and of themselves, can cause health-related problems). I was not making a claim such as, "those who eat large quantities of unhealthy foods are more likely to engage in some other unhealthy activities,"

The first is claim that some individuals engage in an activity which is likely to have negative health consequences. The second is a claim that an individual is more likely to engage in some dangerous activities because he or she has engaged in another specific activity. In the former case, the correlation coefficient between the two activities is 1 (because they are the same activity). In the latter, the correlation coefficient (although possibly positive and possibly large in absolute value), is certainly less than 1.

Hmm, you both have valid points. From my perspective its unfortunate that lots of people might have to suffer because of the actions of a few ( car insurance for instance), but generally speaking if people lack the self control, discipline of common sense to eat, drink or drive safely, then any unfortunate event that befalls them is of their own doing; no law or set of rules is going to persuade them to behave differently. I think…. :roll:

I don’t believe I’m convolving your example rather you are going to great depths to demonstrate the signficance… which is what convolving is, right? I don’t see your example as an appropriate comparison. The trans-fat ban is simply that — something that passed in a single city. Car insurance rates are a nationwide issue. Rates differ based on the city you live in, the distance you travel daily and your age. It is about profit. The trans-fat ban is a blanket "ban". It doesn’t differ based on age. There is no rate or calculation made based upon actions of a cohort. It applies exactly the same to every person.

"In the former case, the correlation coefficient between the two activities is 1 (because they are the same activity)."

Yes, but in the "real" world, each person processes these foods differently (i.e. different levels of HDLs and LDLs), have different levels of fitness and often live to a ripe old age regardless of what they eat (until they get cancer from smoking or some other unrelated travisty). Thus your statement is good, in principle, however, it is not a coefficent of 1 rather less than one in practice.

One final thought:

"… you comment about tattoo bearers and reckless lifestyles. (And even that particular statement is ridiculous, given the prevalence of tattoos in society nowadays.)"

What is this based upon? There are certainly a prevalence of males in your age group that drive cars… why are you still paying high car insurance rates? Guess you’ll find out if/when you take out a personal health insurance policy.

Guys, about the whole issue of fat/alcohol/etc, you are actually discussing
the bans of governments(US as well as Australian) that sprayed people with DDT because it was "safe"(needles to say how many got one form or the other of cancer), sticking hundreds of soldiers ont-too-far-from-ground-zero while testing nukes to see what will happen to them….. etc.
I had a little email, slightly similar topic to Darwin awards, cannot remember proper numbers, but quite a few people per year die while getting out of the bathtub, licking those tasty 9V battery terminals, tripping on the carpet and hitting the edge of tables/whatever and few other pearlers…. so whotcha gonna do, wrap entire species in bubblewrap and cotton balls so nobody would have an accident? People will die, no matter what anyone does. My homecounty of Croatia is another bag of potatoes, but very few things are prohibited, as teens we were able to buy cigarettes, alcoho/whatever, none of my friends ate alcoholics, some do still smoke, i’m the fattest one of the lot….
i don’t know guys, it does come down to personal responsibility….
i don’t blame my mum for making tasties, i blame myself for lack of self-control…….